User talk:Avraham/Archive 20

Editing my own biography
Avraham,

I just noticed that you created a biographical entry for me on Wikipedia. Would it be inappropriate for me to edit my own biographical entry?

Mark Adler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.243.45 (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, Dr. Adler. The best option would be for you to register an account as yourself, and then follow the procedures listed on Autobiography, specifically Autobiography. In a nutshell, there usually is no problem edititing clear-cut items, and if there is anything that may possibly be somewhat controversial, make a note of it on the article's talk page. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I made some small factual corrections, and provided some links for future edits by others on the "talk" page for the article. Dradler (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Urgent admin intervention needed at the Hummus article
Hi Avi: My attention was drawn to the Talk:Hummus page, see Talk:Hummus and Talk:Hummus where some users are deploying the worst kind of blatant antisemitic and Anti-Zionist vitriol in violation of WP:HATE and WP:CIVIL, over a minor food article, yet, unbelievable. There are comments there that should be deleted on sight as well. Please check out that page and the violating editors. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreement with Shirahadasha
Hi Avraham. Thanks for your attention. See User talk:Shirahadasha where I notify User 's agreeing to Shira's proposal at Requests for comment/IZAK2 (and I still hold by Requests for comment/IZAK2). What are your thoughts on the matter? Thanks. IZAK (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, Azaihu chacham was covered: "Understanding that Wikipedia's approach of getting input from anybody may or may not be a "wise" course..." --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorsing new proposal
Hi Avi: Thank you for giving this matter your serious attention. I wanted to let you know that I have now endorsed the latest "Proposed intermediate verdict 3.1" at Requests for comment/IZAK2. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Uw-chat1
Aha. Thanks. I was thinking more of one for the Talk page itself, but that definitely looks in the right territory. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Three...no four counts...
I fear that too many bad Python references will expand the discussion beyond the bounds of acceptable RfA behavior... --Kakofonous (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That I Can Appreciate
LOL - all I can say is, I hope that finger was not pointed at me :-). Shoessss | Chat  03:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL - I’m sorry I laugh so much, but I just get a kick out of the drama that does go on at Rfa’s. Some want it so bad, not to mention name's.  However, what I came to realize, and hopefully the unsuccessful candidates will too, is that I, as a lowly editor, actually have more options than you, who are part of the establishment. Power to the masses :-).  And if I get cared away from time to time, hey, I’m just an editor.  Take care and just remember, at the 1,001 cut it doesn’t hurt anymore :-). Shoessss |  Chat  04:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: Ask for more money if the B-thing comes through.  You are underpaid to begin with :-). Shoessss |  Chat  04:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't say! At least at OTRS I get triple what I do here.....hey, wait a minute! -- Avi (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI
Avraham, I received your note, tho I will say I am confused that I received it in the first place. You seem to be under the impression that I believe it is inappropriate for someone closely associated with an organization to edit it. This is not correct. I wrote on the talk page of Jacobadlerarkansas you can feel free to make neutral edits to the article. In further discussions on the article's talk page IZAK further explained what this meant and I posted a welcome message on the user's talk page. Further, I didn't realize you were at all associated with this article to begin with. I don't see you in the edit history or on the talk page. I am right to assume you randomly came across this article and thus commented on what you thought was my assumed misunderstanding on WP:COI? Bstone (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Adminship
Thank-you for such lovely comments :). Seraphim&hearts;   Whipp 17:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If SW approves, would you be willing to accept me as a co-nominator? I've given the reasons for wanting to over at her's. :) Regards, Rudget . 19:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll write up the nomination in my sandbox. I believe that I'll be unavailable when it actually goes live, but if does decide to accept, either you or SW can add it. Hope this helps. Rudget . 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have now answered the questions and the RfA is ready to be transcluded, however PeaceNT also wanted to nominate me. I'm so appreciative of all the support I'm being given and so I feel like it wouldn't be gracious of me if I didn't wait to see what PeaceNT says. How shall I proceed? Seraphim&hearts;   Whipp 21:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I need your opinion !
Hi, Avraham! My name is Victor. I am very fascinated Wikipedia user and I hope that my knowledge will be useful here. I take a keen interest in real estate and mortgage and now I'm working at the article Fizber (internet company). Some days ago it was nominaded for deletion. So I extremely need your detached opinion about it here - Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_1. Thank you in advance. :) -- Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have a moment and an opinion

 * So, Avi, After thanking you for your help with the history revision removal, I got around to checking out who you were (user page, talk page), as I often will do when I am in a discussion with another user and/or am bored out of my mind. I read your userpage and beliefs and noticed that you were a candidate for bureaucratship.
 * After posting there from what limited knowledge I have (good luck, BTW, you seem to have a lot of support), I thought to myself, "Hey self, I wonder what Avi would think about your other little issue."
 * So I was wondering, if you have the time and inclination, if you'd care to check out this ANI discussion At the core of the debate is whether or not a deleted page can be userfied and if G4 applies to it. The peripheral issue is whether or not processes have been followed in past iterations of similar pages and articles. It's a complicated mess. Personally, I don't care so much about the history, only about the right - per policy - to have a userspace page that is either userfied from deletion or userfied in preparation for article-spacing. More rationale, such as intents and whatnot are therein.
 * Like I said, if you happen to have the time and inclination, I'd be interested in what you think about the whole mess.  •   VigilancePrime    •    •    •  06:19 (UTC)  5 Mar '08

Hello again from down here
Ed O'Loughlin continues to make headlines in Australia. The editorial of the last Australian Jewish News was devoted to him, as was a column that he wrote in the paper in his own defence.

Despite what your co-editors might have thought about inclusion of O'Loughlin on the basis of noteriety, I've no doubts they are wrong.

It is something of a pity that with all the excellent values of Wikipedia it is at heart rotten. http://www.theage.com.au/news/biztech/bwiki-woesb-founder-accused-of-rort-to-fund-massages-and-wine/2008/03/05/1204402516874.html

Oh well, win some lose some.

Kind regards,

Adon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adon Emett (talk • contribs) 10:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)